More details have emerged about Mass Effect 3’s surprising decision to include multiplayer. This time they’re talking about what Galaxy At War might be, and much more information has arrived from elsewhere.

And it seems that the single player game could well be affected by playing not just the multiplayer, but any number of side-projects BioWare tack on to the release of the game.

Earth is pretty idyllic in the Mass Effect universe. A couple of hundred years have seen the weather get a lot worse, but life for the well-off is super-fine. It’s not so great for the poor, although genetic disease is mostly eradicated, and pollution’s been dealt with. Unlike so many universes, where Earth lies as a wasteland, in ME it’s a jewel in the galaxy.

Which makes it quite a big deal that it has been captured by the Reapers.

Things have taken a turn for the worse, and according to the details released by EA today, the entire galaxy is “on the verge of extinction”. So it’s time to take Earth back. That’s the beginning of the latest game, and the Galaxy At War multiplayer all ties into this.

And according to OXM in the US (via PCG), you’ll be able to bounce back and forth between the two modes.

It all takes place in the form of four-player co-op. As we already knew, you play as one of a team of Special Forces soldiers, protecting resources and assets for the war. There’s six classes to choose from (for of which are Soldier, Infiltrator, Engineer and Sentinel), from six races. They be: Human, Krogan, Asari, Drell, Salarian and Turian (the only right choice). This will, apparently, take the form of a survival mode, where you face increasing waves of enemies. Eleven waves, in fact, per section. During this you can progress your character, as well as having an effect on your single-player success, sort of, if you want.

But it works both ways. Success in single-player side-missions and even the main plot will gain you “War Assets”, which can then be used in the MP to get stuff like allies, fleets and facilities. Which in turn means you can better supply Shepard in the SP, and so on. The quote from OXM, as reported by Stick Skills, reads:

“The more you play and build up your multiplayer characters to survive increasingly tough odds, the more power and influence your single-player Shepard will wield by the time the endgame comes based on the amount of War Assets earned.”

However, if you’re completest enough in the SP, you apparently won’t need to take part in the MP at all to receive all the same bonuses. Gosh, it sounds maddeningly and unnecessarily complicated.

And it seems the links are even more complex than first thought. It’s not just the multiplayer that will effect your single-player game, but apparently all the other space junk that’s released alongside the game – presumably Facebook, iOS, and the like. That’s what I’m interpreting from this passage in the game’s press release:

“With the Mass Effect 3: Galaxy at War system, players will fight for the survival of the galaxy against an ancient alien race known only as, Reapers, in both the single player campaign and through a suite of Mass Effect games and applications. Progress made in each of the components of the system, including the new multiplayer mode, will directly link back to the player’s main campaign, helping Commander Shepard rally the forces of the galaxy to eliminate the Reaper threat once and for all.”

This also means the game will be coming with an “online pass”. Oh goodie.

So there you go. I really have no idea what to make of it, other than to quite aggressively feel that if I’m required to take part in some co-op in order to be able to properly enjoy the single-player campaign, I’m going to be furious. The implication appears to be that I will not, especially if I chase after all the side-quests, which I certainly will. But this is tenuously thin ice BioWare have chosen to tread, especially for a company formerly so deeply dedicated to single-player gaming. While I have not a scrap of evidence, and the claims are that they’ve been planning to include such a component since the first game, this really does reek of marketing before design. However, I’ve still enough faith in BioWare to assume that they’ll get this right. Right?

Was anyone honestly sat at their computer thinking “you know what this great single player game needs? Other people!”. Cos I’m yet to find many things that are improved by adding people of variable quality.

But oblivion with its giant go anywhere kill anyone but do it on your tod? Telling me that would not be coop heaven? Hell, they’d better bring back morrow wind enchantment though, storm a castle with your rings of levitation? Giving your friend a hat that randomly teleports him without telling him what it does… Ah, bliss. Magicka goes some way towards this, but its linear and too brutal.

coop can be a good thing IF you can still play the single player mode without feeling like something is missing. examples: Portal 2 did coop right, and it sounds sorta like ME3 is doing something similar, but I’m worried they are trying to tie things together too much. Dungeon Siege 3 is an example of coop done wrong, IMO. You could play it single player, but then you were saddled with a hopeless AI stand in.

Either way, this doesn’t seem that bad, it might be fun. I guess it will depend on what sort of matchmaking there is and if you can count on getting halfway competent people out of the intertubes to coop with you.

@Helio
Oblivion had very little story though so wouldn’t have gotten in the way of anything by having other people running around with you. Same with games like Fallout 3, Just Cause 2 or (my own personal co-op wish) Far Cry 2.

The influence of MP on SP talked about here is just unsettling, either as something which makes you spend the entire time thinking you’re missing out (or doing something tedious which could be done in seconds in MP) or as a precursor to this sort of thing becoming more prevalent and as such eventually reaching the point where MP is necessary for 100%.

Remember Secret of Mana’s co-op? A friend could just plug in a second (or third) controller and take over one of your allies. A lot of the Final Fantasy games also let you assign characters to different controllers in battle. It’s small, simple “co-op”. It doesn’t require its own mode or re-tailoring the SP to make it work. Drop in and play whenever you want with a mate.

That’s what I was hoping for when I first heard about co-op for Mass Effect. Futile hope, I knew, as co-op can’t just be a nice bonus feature anymore. If it isn’t marketable, it isn’t worth including. And holy hell have they made this co-op marketable…

I figured it would be a kind of horde/survival mode, it’s the easiest kind really. I love co-op but only controlled private co-op, I don’t know why they won’t just let me hand over control of one of my team mates to a friend (or two) and let us play out the campaign.

Do I want somebody to read a book with me over my shoulder, with the ability to tear the pages and swear at any moment?
Do I want to play a single player game, with deep engaging story, with strangers on the internet?
And finally, If I want to play it 6 months from now, would I even find anybody to play it with?

Although you do have a point and I can’t say I thought Walker’s response to you was in any way adequate, I’d like to remind you that private companies’ press releases aren’t news themselves so much as they are propaganda (no matter how many commenters are prepared to try and use it to quash pessimism with arguments of the “you don’t have to do it, Bioware said so” sort).

On having “the wrong site”, although not making John’s words my own, I’d also tell you (both) that I’d much rather have a cynical (pessimistic, even) reporter remind me that none of the above is fact until he/an independent 3rd party can witness it first hand instead of a “news” site that’s prepared to trumpet said press release as irrefutable fact.

@greenbananas
I hear and accept what you say, you make some very good points, especially about the “company press release” not in itself being news.

I guess I am just applying my dislike of reporting in the media to the way I believe RPS is going (which I accept is a fully personal opinion). In a way its all just a reaction to my desperation at the general state of the internet comment sections these days. I look at youtube comments and I feel my brain cells exploding.

You’re welcome, although I feel no thanks are necessary, since all I did was treat you with the same modicum of decorum and elevation you presented your case to begin with.

I am, however, left feeling a bit of a devil’s advocate, myself, since yours is a concern I share, particularly as far as the news on tv are concerned. Hopefully, the comment-y nature of RPS won’t mean it’s susceptible to descend to Fox News levels and that the response you got doesn’t mean the writers on here are so tired of criticism that they can’t tell the fair and the unfair apart anymore.

As for youtube comments, only for comedic purposes and in little-to-moderate amounts. Besides, you could always try Vimeo instead ;)

And if I may add, I hated that I had to play that part with a stranger. Not everybody has real friends who play videogames, and I had to resort to random people.
And I just couldn’t play those levels the way I wanted to.
I wanted to go around, explore, and enjoy. Not the other people.

“And I just couldn’t play those levels the way I wanted to.
I wanted to go around, explore, and enjoy. Not the other people”

Why can’t you play the co-op levels without anothe person? Because they’re co-op levels. They wouldn’t work with only one person. If they did, they wouldn’t be co-op levels. Why would you begrudge people who *do* have friends (or who don’t mind playing with strangers) who play games the ability to enjoy some co-op fun?

The question for Valve is, how many more copies of the game were sold on the basis of the multi-player component?

I certainly wasn’t impressed by the decision to divert resources away from the single player game in order to create a co-op component that I would never play. But this is just me isn’t it? No. Wait. IIRC, Valve themselves have stated their surprise that relatively few people have played Portal 2 co-op. Still, Portal 2 felt complete and left me with a warm and fuzzy feeling so I hold no grudge.

The issue at hand for Bioware appears to be the requirement to include the “online pass” system at any cost. An entire team of developers who could be adding to single player content are instead engaged in four-play with the sole aim of seducing cash from the pockets of second hand gamers.

In other news: It’s good to hear that Bioware are capitalising on the success of DA2’s ‘Waves of Enemies” model.

Alas i have zero faith in Bioware. I will of course listen to reviews, both player and Wot i Thinks, but im thinking there is a strong chance that i wont get this game.

ME2 was treading on thin ice for me. If ME3 is more action orientated or if the multiplayer looks to impede my enjoyment of the game, then it will have fallen through the ice and will be playing cards with the Titanic as far as im concerned.

EDIT: Another thought. There is a lot of effort going into the MP element of the game. I cannot believe that all of these resources spent are not affecting the aulity of the single player game. I know they said the resources would be taken from elsewhere, but i seriously have my doubts given Biowares recent trend of cutting corners.

Unlike their unconvincing assertions that multiplayer wasn’t on the cards a way back they have been adamant that no resources have been cut from the single player experience in favour of this multiplayer mode.

I’m not the massive fan of this announcement, I still think it would have been better served as a post ME3 spin off game with the MP given the main focus. However I really doubt they would lie about something that can be verified when the game launches. This together with the fact they have stated that their new studio in Montreal have been in charage of development, and an apparent increased budget and a release date extension all points towards it being an added extra.

It’s difficult to even complain about them using the new resources to further add to the single player as we have no idea whether they were only granted by the high ups after multiplayer was pitched and exclusively for that new feature.

Hear hear. Whether MP affects SP or not, I just don’t like this line of thinking from an RPG-maker. It’s all about context and everything else they’ve been doing. ME1 was a fantastic journey, and it seems I’m the only one who thought ME2 was a pile of junk in comparison: console-y Gears of War crap. Sure you had special abilities but that was about as RPG as it got. The linear levels (c’mon you couldn’t even run around the Citadel anymore??), boring missions and storyline, and everything else, and now all the trailers for this game are nothing but in-game cinematics and action sequences. Then they come out with this online gameworld stuff and multiplayer. It’s not any one thing, just the whole franchise is in the wrong hands. Watching producers talk in producer speak like the guy yesterday about ‘integration’ and ‘cross-platform’ and ‘experience’ makes me want to create an experience on their face. I want another ME1, not another shoot-and-cover-between-cutscenes game, christ how many of those do we need?

However I really doubt they would lie about something that can be verified when the game launches.

Except that’s not something that can be verified. How can someone look at the game and objectively say “Yep, this part of the single-player here totally would have been better if they just hadn’t wasted time on the multiplayer” or “Nope, looks like BioWare was correct, as there is absolutely no way the game could have been improved even if they had diverted the resources they wasted on the multiplayer into further polishing the single-player.”

There were even things about ME1 and ME2 that people didn’t like, and back then they didn’t have the excuse of blaming tacked on multiplayer. Now, however, with ME3, even if it somehow ends up being the video game equivalent of constant orgasms forever, there will still always be the shadow of “how much better would this game have been had they not wasted so much time and effort shoehorning in multiplayer” looming over it. You say it’s a separate studio working on the multiplayer? Well, what if instead of working on the multiplayer, that studio had been tasked with helping to polish or bug-test the single-player even more? This is why BioWare’s assurances ring hollow.

Despite BioWare’s claims of their autonomy, the stench of EA surrounds this whole rotten affair.

Those odds would seem to be increasing. Especially if your progress in the SP game has to be tracked on their servers, so your “War Assets” (ugh) can be slotted into any MP side mission you might choose to play.

Also, hmmm… four players, eh? What are the odds this same system will be used for a Dragon Age 3 party?

Please let me share of your “Ugh” towards these so called “War Assets”. They way they mention it makes it sound like all the game is about is pushing a numerical value over an arbitrary barrier so you don’t get the standard Game Over screen, by way of completing a sleuth of completely unrelated (and completely arbitrary, themselves) objectives. I mean, isn’t this the kind of gamey crap that should be kept behind the curtain?

So there you go. I really have no idea what to make of it, other than to quite aggressively feel that if I’m required to take part in some co-op in order to be able to properly enjoy the single-player campaign, I’m going to be furious.

I don’t know why you felt the need to mention that, considering you just said in this very post that this wasn’t the case.

To simplify, Galaxy at War is a currency you earn in single player, co-op, and outside the game, to buy upgrades in single player and co-op. You can earn enough from the single player alone to complete the game with the best possible ending. Note that by playing co-op as well, you have more stuff to unlock, therefore need more Galaxy at War, and therefore playing co-op doesn’t give you an outright advantage over single player purists, merely more choices on what to unlock.

Well, resume hating on the multiplayer component that some of us do want to play.

I read it. It doesn’t change my mind in the slightest that what had been a completely single-player series until now did not need the addition of a multiplayer component at all. So yeah, I will resume hating on the multiplayer. Thank you very much for your permission to do so.

Also, this basically means you should jump into coop right away, so you get the best possible result when playing singleplayer because I am sure everyone will want to get as much as possible from their playthrough. That’s just stupid

Let’s wait to see how they’re tracking the player’s progress in SP, before making a judgement on how it’s affected by MP. There is at least the potential here, for an always-online requirement to sync progress between SP and MP players.

We shouldn’t jump the gun on that either, but until Bioware says something about the mechanics of how this is handled, I don’t think we can just assume the MP mode won’t affect the SP experience.

I used to play baldur’s gate in coop, it was quite badass actually. I’m buying this anyway, so smuggling in a coop could be a genius move for them, after all Assassins Creed was a singleplayer game that smuggled in multiplayer and I love that.

Lets just play it when it comes, unless you are boycotting origin, or Bioware, or EA or video games or something, then complain away about that game you haven’t played.

I played Baldur’s Gate in co-op LAN with my wife, and we had a blast. We played System Shock 2 that way too. This is a little different. It’s not being able to play ME3 with my wife as a co-Shepard or team member, all the way through the campaign. That might actually be fun.

This is more like doing a raid in WoW in a dungeon instance, to get your full armor set, so you can go back out into the main game with better gear. It’s one step towards making each new Bioware game some kind of hybrid social media/MMO game instead of the single-player game many of us want.

Look at it this way: how well they pull it off is all up for debate, but at least Bioware’s heart seems to be in the right place here. They know that Mass Effect first and foremost a single player game, so they have made sure that playing multiplayer is not the only way to go about getting the goodies for the single player.

This sounds like an initiative to give players who just rush through the story access to some of the advantages that usually only single player completionists would find. I don’t think there’s any problem with that attitude. Yes, they might screw it up, but they seem to at least be trying to do it right.

This is pretty much my take on the issue as well. Regardless of implementation, the concept is actually rather nice. It even allows for some nice roleplaying opportunities. Suppose I felt that in Mass Effect 2, I needed to act more quickly, and found the “do a bunch of side-quests and mine a bunch of planets to upgrade your armor plates in order to best defeat the enemy while time is running out” concept a bit of a stretch. Being able to augment some of that through a co-op mode in which you simulated allies providing support for the main mission, or even through mini-games with poorly constructed context would allow for not only a quicker playthrough with a less devastating outcome, but perhaps one that feels more justifiable–both in how well you succeed and the extent to which you fail. Or if you don’t care about role playing and just want to get the good ending. Then it’s even better. And that’s ok.

I like games that don’t try to tell players there’s a “proper” way to get the experience.

Sounds like an interesting experiment that could either work really well or fall on it’s arse.

I think BioWare should be applauded for trying new things if nothing else (even if it turns out not to work). It’s a little hypocritical of us to complain about the developers churning out endless clones of previous successes, then to chunter when someone tries something a bit different.

Still not happy with this. I’ll probably still just do everything singleplayer but it just doesn’t feel right for bioware to be doing this. Just my opinion but they know they do singleplayer so very well by now, and have had 2 games in this particular series to refine it, there was no need to add this element in really.

Given that Mass Effect is a game given to no little grind in its side quests, planet scanning etc. I am worried that the presence of MP might result in a further re-balancing of the SP game towards more grind for the good endings. It might well not happen, but I’m worried it might.

PS For clarity, before I get accused (again) of not understanding words like ‘optional’, I understand that it is possible to get the same results by only playing SP. And this is good. It does not mean I shouldn’t have concerns.

Yeah, this is part of my concern as well, that, sure, you can absolutely play the game exclusively single-player if you want and not have to ever touch the multiplayer at all… …as long as you’re willing to grind for an additional hundred hours or however long for these so-called War Assets that you could have gotten much more easily by just playing a couple hours worth of multiplayer. You know, as an “incentive” for the player to just say screw it and play the multiplayer anyway, whether he or she really wanted to or not. Either that, or we’ll later be seeing something like “Don’t want to play the multiplayer but don’t want to grind for 100+ extra hours either? Well, buy this special DLC to get (arbitrary amount of) War Assets!” or whatever. I wouldn’t put something like that past BioWare, at this point. Or, rather, I wouldn’t put it past their EA overlords. It wouldn’t be the first game to do something like that. E.g. the Dog Potion in Fable 3.

I need more information than that, before I can feel relief. I don’t want to play any Facebook-iOS-App-Multiplayer, and I don’t want to miss out on any singleplayer content. I’m not convinved that I’ll get that, at the moment.

I don’t get the confusion over this, it seems pretty straightforward to me. The game has a resource system (kinda like ME2.) You will need a given amount of those resources to get the best ending (again, like ME2.) You can get all the resources you need by just playing the game (seeing a pattern here?) The only new bit is that you have some more ways to get those resources, including MP.

i’m as single player as they come, i’ve only very recently started playing any games online – even with my old mp games i used to only play against bots offline. but you gotta be a total retard not to be excited about mass effect mp. stop whining, bitches.

“Human, Krogan, Asari, Drell, Salarian and Turian (the only right choice)”

No, the actual right choice is hanar, but it doesn’t seem you can play as non-anthropomorphic races…
Also, it doesn’t seem like there will be any story in the MP, which doesn’t make much sense. I think that having a side story in the co-op mode, similar to what Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory did would make much more sense. As it is, I think the multiplayer will be a side thing that will please no one.

Here’s the thing, when Bioware has done stuff like this in the past, with pre-order bonuses or the Dragon Age: Legends stuff, they’d just made the game easier. The game was clearly balanced around not having those items.

So I’m optimistic: I think the game will be balanced around people just doing the single-player, which will make the optimal ending tough but viable to get. Multi-player and whatever else will just make it easier.

That is speculation, but it’s based on previous form. I’m more worried I won’t be able to do multiplayer without making my single-player game easier…

I remember I thought they were completely going to bungle ME2 and that turned out awesome, so I assume this is another one of their communication cock-ups (the marketing department wants to generate buzz, but they don’t actually want to give you any useful information).

One of the things that scares me is getting bugged about tying my account to facebook whenever I start the game, or gaining an achievement and being told I can now connect my accounts or sillyness like that. But, again, while it all sounds a bit ominous I’m sure Bioware realise we want immersion first and foremost and everything else is secondary, thus hopefully easily ignored.

It’ll be interesting to see really how much of a success the “social” stuff is, even more than the other things. Personally I think most people don’t really want to spam their friends and will kind of resent you for it when you make them, but there’s definitely a subset who don’t mind at all.

My prediction is that the MP just turns out to be a series of pointless, combat-only missions – possibly procedurally generated – with no story or RP content to speak of… In all likelihood, using recycled maps from the SP.

In other words, like the N7 missions from ME2, but even less interesting, with the only “plot” being conveyed by text displayed on terminals.

Unless they’ve gone completely bat$#@& insane and intend to squander voice acting and cinematic cutscene design on a marketing tool… but that makes some of the decisions that led to DA2 look reasonable in comparison. Not even Bioware are that stupid. I hope.

I think a separate team working on multiplayer won’t detract from the rich experience of Ducking Behind Boxes that is the single player game. No disrespect, I enjoyed the first two games but let’s be realistic here.

On the other hand I suppose I’m lucky as I’ve met some really cool people at random playing co-op games so my opinion isn’t as bleak as the internet on a whole.

Hmmm… Maybe they are using ME3 as a testbed for the “multiplayer impacts singleplayer” concept. It seems to me that they would want to promote it as a way to combat piracy and the rise in GOTY buyers.

Let’s face it, many of us are sick of being milked for DLC, and GOTY increasingly seems the way to go, especially if you have a games backlog and the game is single player. If not enough people are playing online when you buy the GOTY edition (probably 1 to 2 years after release), you don’t get the best ending!

It seems to me that optional multiplayer/co-op could make a good addition to the world.

What if they gave you possible progress towards your end goals via multiplayer, of a similar amount that you got from scanning planets and some of the tinier side missions in the second game. Essentially scanning planets was little fun, but it gave completionists things to do, and it spread the game out a bit. I’d relish the chance to say stuff the scanning, I’m going to go play Left 4 Drell and make the busy-work part of progress that way.

Obviously, if they’re devleloping extra features then that MAY mean less time spent on single player features, but I think there’s room for the benifit of the doubt at this point.

Multiplayer additions have tended toward deathmatch, CTFlag/Checkpoint/Rabid Ferret and class based team shooters. All of which leave me feeling fairly cold. However co-op gaming? That’s usually a blast. Borderlands for instance, on my own it was alright. With my missus calling and shooting shotgun it was laugh out loud fun.

The marketing suits have told us it’s a set of 4 player co-op missions. Does that mean that four players are mandatory? Or can we play comfortably as a duo or trio? I’ve never liked PUGs and the idea of playing with my missus and two shrill whining elitist 12 years olds screaming that we’re noobfags for not playing a krogan right … I am filled with pre-emptive horror.

Not sure why anyone would “trust in Bioware” after Dragon Age II. Personally, I’m fearing the worst for ME3. Practically everything they’re showing only pertains to the action side of the game, which was already too big for my liking in ME2. Adding multiplayer co-op and, of course, basically only talking about the action side of that as well makes me sigh.

I do not understand the outrage at all. The multiplayer part, the iOS, the Facebook; it’s all supplemental. You can have a complete Single Player experience, that is exactly what it would be, even if they didn’t include the multiplayer part.

You can do sidequests in single player, and if you want, you can supplement in multiplayer. To get everything out of the single player experience and playthrough, all you need is the single player playthrough.

It’s not what they’re saying on the surface about this, it’s the implications.

How much time will we have to spend “logging in” to Cerberus Network (or whatever the new version is) in order to boot up a single player savegame? How much advertising will we see in the game launcher about the MP, Facebook, and iPhone app options? Or worse, will we hear about these options in-game, as a message Shep gets while looking at the galaxy map? Will we have to maintain a constant online connection to keep all our stats in sync, even if we never intend to play an MP mission?

We don’t know any of that, but the company that inserted an in-game DLC salesman as an NPC at the edge of the campground in the first Dragon Age game, doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. I’ll assume this is going to be onerous even for single player mode until they prove otherwise.

I stand by my opinion that it’s too good an idea to restrict to a bonus mode in the final game of the trilogy. Anyone who didn’t see the franchise going multiplayer post ME3 was deluding themselves, to be frank, it was always on the cards. The concept for this is a good one if we are going to have it, co op is great fun, but I think it had the potential to be a game in it’s own right – or have a game built around it. A spin off naturally, but one that would sell like hot cakes in a post-Shepard world because of the lure of ME with multiplayer.

I guess they felt ME3 didn’t have enough killer apps as it is.

That said some of the silliness that has come out of this is a bit baffling. How people have run off with the idea that it’ll be needed for single player I have no idea, it seemed pretty clear to me even when news was first emerging that they intended it to be an optional feature that enhances the single player only if you choose to utilize it as such.

If anything we should be lauding them for bothering to try and be creative with this mode and have it fit with the Mass Effect style – no death matches, no Shepard clones, just a co op mode designed to enhance the feeling of a large scale war. The custom characters are a great touch as well, and didn’t need to be added if it was just a pure money grab.

I’m skeptical they can pull this off well too guys, but try to remember where your towel is and don’t panic maybe?

seo service
Im having a blast playing Co-op, and even enjoying the random unlocks, and the random players. Ill just search for random games and play with whoever, mic or not. But, i’ve noticed a funny thing happening…im actually starting to tense up a little when i get a random enemy type and it turns out to be the Reapers. It makes me play more honest and put my game face on, so to speak.

I just began noticing this phenomena yesterday when i entered a random room and it was just 3 of us, me with my Salarian Engineer, a Human Engineer, and a Human Sentinel. Ive fought with just 3 people before, so it shouldnt have been a big deal, i figured we were all pretty mid leveled N7s, so we could handle it….